Opinion of Eharding

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Haven't noticed him much.

I haven't noticed him at all, but these threads on new posters just has to stop........who can judge this soon, unless it's a clear sock account.

[Wells]

He's made a lot of bad posts in this thread. Let me fix a few of them.

He is a libertarian like me.

Great flags, Santander! Good way to annoy the deranged Russophobes! Yes; I do generally align myself with the GOP's libertarian wing in Congress, and am a fan of the 1852 Democratic platform. Amash and Massie are my favorite representatives, for their vigilant resistance of all domestic tyranny.

HP fits him perfectly.

Why, because I'm anti-neocon?

I have gotten along pretty well with multiple anti-neocons on this forum. Its not about the views. It's the attitude and delivery.

Explain. I think I have a great attitude and solid delivery. But who am I to judge?

Without even getting to the ideology he promotes or the amount he's been popping up everywhere, the "-" he starts each post with is enough to make him an HP.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Didn't he say that he isn't pro-life?  That's a political deal-breaker for me.

I'm not pro-life personally, but will be glad to vote for pro-life politicians or further the passage of pro-life policies in order to advance policies more important to me (like those on the economy, foreign policy, and preventing SJWs from having their way).

There, now he becomes a "Nice Guy, FF " And I would like to compliment him on this post:

I can assure you all I am a true national liberator.

That one didn't need any fixing. Mostly:

I can assure you all I am a true national liberator. insane

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Hilarious Person. Reminds me of Happy Sad Trumpista, who disappeared after November.

-I think he turned into another "I-SE".

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Generic fascist trolls should not be given attention.

[SATW]

Haven't noticed him much.

I haven't noticed him at all, but these threads on new posters just has to stop........who can judge this soon, unless it's a clear sock account.

I'm hardly aligned with the anti-Russia brigade, but Eharding is pretty blatantly a Russian troll. He literally justified political stances based off what the Eastern bloc believed in the 1970's.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Haven't noticed him much.

I haven't noticed him at all, but these threads on new posters just has to stop........who can judge this soon, unless it's a clear sock account.

I'm hardly aligned with the anti-Russia brigade, but Eharding is pretty blatantly a Russian troll. He literally justified political stances based off what the Eastern bloc believed in the 1970's.

-No, I justified them as not being weird based off that. I don't see what changed between 1950 and 2017 in America to change everyone's opinions of homosexuality.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Haven't noticed him much.

I haven't noticed him at all, but these threads on new posters just has to stop........who can judge this soon, unless it's a clear sock account.

I'm hardly aligned with the anti-Russia brigade, but Eharding is pretty blatantly a Russian troll. He literally justified political stances based off what the Eastern bloc believed in the 1970's.

-No, I justified them as not being weird based off that. I don't see what changed between 1950 and 2017 in America to change everyone's opinions of homosexuality.

People became slightly less awful.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

On iggy.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

On iggy.

I'm on Scott's iggy as well, so if that's the criteria, Eharding is a FF.

[The Dowager Mod]

We have had better trolls around here over the years.

[RINO Tom]

He is a libertarian like me.

-Great flags, Santander! Good way to annoy the deranged Russophobes! Yes; I do generally align myself with the GOP's libertarian wing in Congress, and am a fan of the 1852 Democratic platform. Amash and Massie are my favorite representatives, for their vigilant resistance of all domestic tyranny.

"Resolved, That the democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."

Yeah, this part was a real gem, SO libertarian.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

On iggy.

I'm on Scott's iggy as well, so if that's the criteria, Eharding is a FF.

I took you off a while ago, friend.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

On iggy.

I'm on Scott's iggy as well, so if that's the criteria, Eharding is a FF.

I took you off a while ago, friend.

Oooooooooooooops 

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

He is a libertarian like me.

-Great flags, Santander! Good way to annoy the deranged Russophobes! Yes; I do generally align myself with the GOP's libertarian wing in Congress, and am a fan of the 1852 Democratic platform. Amash and Massie are my favorite representatives, for their vigilant resistance of all domestic tyranny.

"Resolved, That the democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."

Yeah, this part was a real gem, SO libertarian.

-It's completely irrelevant for the modern day, and was good advice at the time. Agitation of the slavery question eventually led to the greatest bloodshed in U.S. history. America in the 1850s was better off avoiding it.

[Virginiá]

-It's completely irrelevant for the modern day, and was good advice at the time. Agitation of the slavery question eventually led to the greatest bloodshed in U.S. history. America in the 1850s was better off avoiding it.

So you're saying it wasn't worth fighting a civil war over slavery? Really? When should they have settled the slavery question?

Also, why do you keep putting "-" in front of your messages?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

-It's completely irrelevant for the modern day, and was good advice at the time. Agitation of the slavery question eventually led to the greatest bloodshed in U.S. history. America in the 1850s was better off avoiding it.

So you're saying it wasn't worth fighting a civil war over slavery? Really? When should they have settled the slavery question?

Also, why do you keep putting "-" in front of your messages?

-The slavery question should have been settled around the 1880s, when Brazil finally abolished slavery. Nah; the war wasn't worth it. The "-" is for replies, to distinguish my words from those of others.

[RINO Tom]

The slavery "question" should have never BEEN a question, and why the  should we have taken Brazil's lead on abolishing that human atrocity?  Thank God the Republicans came along, is all I have to say, because the 1850s Democrats were easily the worst major political party in US history.

[Cashew]

-It's completely irrelevant for the modern day, and was good advice at the time. Agitation of the slavery question eventually led to the greatest bloodshed in U.S. history. America in the 1850s was better off avoiding it.

So you're saying it wasn't worth fighting a civil war over slavery? Really? When should they have settled the slavery question?

Also, why do you keep putting "-" in front of your messages?

-The slavery question should have been settled around the 1880s, when Brazil finally abolished slavery. Nah; the war wasn't worth it. The "-" is for replies, to distinguish my words from those of others.

NO it was not getting better on its own. It only got worse with each generation.

The generation of the founders held the opinion that slavery "necessary evil" but no one seriously argued that it was morally acceptable.

By the time the civil war came about however you had to accept that slavery was a "positive good" if you did not want to meet a violent end. You even had some like Edmund Ruffin arguing for the expansion of slavery to poor whites because it was such a wonderful system. You has pastors willing to lie and claim slavery was biblically ordained to appease their culture. Thomas Jefferson, a fellow slave owner would have probably been hanged for not being enthusiastic enough.

Please do explain how slavery was going to be peacefully abolished, if expressing abolitionist sentiment meant being exiled or killed?

[Enduro]

He's kind've annoying.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The slavery "question" should have never BEEN a question, and why the  should we have taken Brazil's lead on abolishing that human atrocity?  Thank God the Republicans came along, is all I have to say, because the 1850s Democrats were easily the worst major political party in US history.

-By 1856 they had certainly gone a bit overboard, but the worst major political party in US history has to be the 1930s Democrats for their shredding of any hint of constitutional limit. The 1850s Dems didn't do that.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

-It's completely irrelevant for the modern day, and was good advice at the time. Agitation of the slavery question eventually led to the greatest bloodshed in U.S. history. America in the 1850s was better off avoiding it.

So you're saying it wasn't worth fighting a civil war over slavery? Really? When should they have settled the slavery question?

Also, why do you keep putting "-" in front of your messages?

-The slavery question should have been settled around the 1880s, when Brazil finally abolished slavery. Nah; the war wasn't worth it. The "-" is for replies, to distinguish my words from those of others.

NO it was not getting better on its own. It only got worse with each generation.

The generation of the founders held the opinion that slavery "necessary evil" but no one seriously argued that it was morally acceptable.

By the time the civil war came about however you had to accept that slavery was a "positive good" if you did not want to meet a violent end. You even had some like Edmund Ruffin arguing for the expansion of slavery to poor whites because it was such a wonderful system. You has pastors willing to lie and claim slavery was biblically ordained to appease their culture. Thomas Jefferson, a fellow slave owner would have probably been hanged for not being enthusiastic enough.

Please do explain how slavery was going to be peacefully abolished, if expressing abolitionist sentiment meant being exiled or killed?

-Again, Brazil abolished slavery in the 1880s. There is no reason to believe America's pro-slavery habits and opinions were more ingrained. Slavery became increasingly strongly defended in the South over the first half of the 19th century mostly due to it coming under threat from northern abolitionists while it still remained economically profitable. It was a bit like those state same-sex marriage bans in the second Bush era.

[Cashew]

-It's completely irrelevant for the modern day, and was good advice at the time. Agitation of the slavery question eventually led to the greatest bloodshed in U.S. history. America in the 1850s was better off avoiding it.

So you're saying it wasn't worth fighting a civil war over slavery? Really? When should they have settled the slavery question?

Also, why do you keep putting "-" in front of your messages?

-The slavery question should have been settled around the 1880s, when Brazil finally abolished slavery. Nah; the war wasn't worth it. The "-" is for replies, to distinguish my words from those of others.

NO it was not getting better on its own. It only got worse with each generation.

The generation of the founders held the opinion that slavery "necessary evil" but no one seriously argued that it was morally acceptable.

By the time the civil war came about however you had to accept that slavery was a "positive good" if you did not want to meet a violent end. You even had some like Edmund Ruffin arguing for the expansion of slavery to poor whites because it was such a wonderful system. You has pastors willing to lie and claim slavery was biblically ordained to appease their culture. Thomas Jefferson, a fellow slave owner would have probably been hanged for not being enthusiastic enough.

Please do explain how slavery was going to be peacefully abolished, if expressing abolitionist sentiment meant being exiled or killed?

-Again, Brazil abolished slavery in the 1880s. There is no reason to believe America's pro-slavery habits and opinions were more ingrained. Slavery became increasingly strongly defended in the South over the first half of the 19th century mostly due to it coming under threat from northern abolitionists while it still remained economically profitable. It was a bit like those state same-sex marriage bans in the second Bush era.

Amazing how you did not bother to answer the question.

The bolded statement you made was absolutely false. Did supporters of gay marriage have their houses destroyed while running from a lynch mob? Did pro gay newspapers get shut down?

There was no freedom of speech allowed when it came to the slavery question!

[Santander]

Saul Alinsky.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Saul Alinsky.

-???

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The Civil War was (A) determined to happen because of Southern secession; (B) A necessary occurrence given the inevitable disparities between northern industrial "free labor" capitalism and southern agrarian neo-feudal slave-based capitalism. A lot of "material revolutions" are determined by bloodshed. In any case, the sooner the "question" was resolved, the better, given that it allowed the United States to advance economically afterwards.

In any case, HP. There can only be one viable R-MI avatar, and that job is already taken!